A Constitutional Court judgment, which provides protection to asylum seekers whose applications for refugee status were under review, has been welcomed by the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), says TimesLIVE. Twenty-nine asylum seekers, represented by the LRC, challenged the refusal of the Cape Town Refugee Reception Office to renew their Section 22 asylum seeker permits pending the outcome of individual High Court reviews of each of their rejected applications.

The case in the Western Cape High Court rested on the issue of what the reception office must lawfully undertake in terms of granting an extension on these permits, and was on appeal from the SCA.

The Constitutional Court held that the constitutional interpretation of sections of the Refugees Act is that the word 'may' does not confer a discretion, but rather empowers and enjoins the Refugee Reception Office to extend asylum seeker permits until the finalisation of a judicial review.

The judgment emphasised the need for the Constitutional Court to interpret the statutory provisions in accordance with the purpose of the Refugees Act, which is to give effect to international refugee law.

The judgment reasoned that an interpretation refusing to extend permits during judicial review would be at odds with the principle of non-refoulement since asylum seekers would lose their entitlement to remain in SA lawfully and be at risk of deportation. The LRC said the judgment was another landmark one 'which emphasises the need to protect vulnerable asylum seekers'. The judgment also highlighted a section of the Constitution that requires that courts to interpret legislation in a manner that promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. 

Full TimesLIVE report

Saidi v Minister of Home Affairs